The Returns Management Process in Supply Chain Strategy

Transcription

1 The Returns Management Process in Supply Chain Strategy Diane Mollenkopf 1 Assistant Professor of Logistics Department of Marketing & Logistics University of Tennessee 323 Stokely Management Center Knoxville, TN USA phone: fax: mollenkopf@utk.edu Ivan Russo Assistant Professor of Marketing and Logistics Department of Business Economics University of Verona Via dell'artigliere 19 Verona, Italy phone: fax: ivan.russo@univr.it Robert Frankel Richard deraismes Kip Professor of Marketing & Logistics(Associate Professor) Department of Management, Marketing & Logistics Coggin College of Business University of North Florida 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road Jacksonville, FL USA phone: (904) fax: (904) rfrankel@unf.edu Submitted to International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management and accepted 1 Correspondence Author. Dr. Diane Mollenkopf, Assistant Professor of Logistics, Department of Marketing & Logistics, University of Tennessee, 323 Stokely Management Center, Knoxville, TN phone: fax: mollenkopf@utk.edu. 1

2 The Returns Management Process in Supply Chain Strategy Introduction Many companies have adopted and implemented supply chain initiatives, particularly as they globalize their operations. Emphasis on managing business processes across extended supply chains is growing (Lambert et al., 1998). One of these processes returns management focuses on the reverse supply chain, and effective management can be complicated by the boundary spanning nature of this process within a firm and across the entire supply chain (Rogers et al., 2002). Effective management is important because returns can erode profitability for a firm and can impact relationships with customers and end-users, as well as impact a firm s reputation with stakeholders. In this paper, we use the Rogers et al. (2002) definition of returns management as all activities related to returns: avoidance, gatekeeping, reverse logistics, and disposal. Long the forgotten step-child of logistics/supply chain managers, the strategic importance of effectively managing returns is becoming increasingly evident as firms seek to maximize the value they create for themselves and for customers. When firms view returns as just a cost center or a regulatory compliance issue, they miss potential value that can be created for themselves and their customers. Mollenkopf and Closs (2005) point out this value can only be created by understanding the multifunctional components of marketing, logistics, operations and finance/accounting functions which actively engage in managing return products. But little is known about the nature of these inter-functional relationships within firms as they relate to returns management. On the marketing and logistics front, integration of these functional areas has been studied extensively for forward supply chains (Bowersox et al., 1999; Mollenkopf et al., 2000; Stank et al., 2001) and research interest is now developing around various aspects of reverse logistics (Carter and Ellram, 1998; Fleischmann et al., 2000; Rogers and Tibben-Lembke, 2001; Mollenkopf et al., 2005). However, there has been limited attention to theory-based research in the returns management arena (Jahre, 1995a; Carter and Ellram, 1998; Daugherty et al., 2001) and the issue of functional integration has been largely ignored. Marketing strategy and policy decisions can have a significant impact on the type and timing of product returns, which would influence the nature and extent of reverse logistics activities a firm would have to undertake. Yet the nature of the relationship between marketing and logistics as related to returns management and subsequent reverse logistics activities remains unknown. Thus, the current research seeks to better understand linkages between marketing and logistics at both the strategic and operation levels within firms as they deal with returns management. In trying to better understand the nature of marketing and logistics involvement in returns management, we focus on four specific research questions: 2

3 1. What is the role of the returns management process in the firm s overall supply chain strategy? 2. How are the marketing and logistics functional areas integrated into the returns management process? 3. What role does a firm s supply chain orientation play in how it engages in the returns management process? 4. What external factors influence the returns management process within the firm? We employ a qualitative methodology, due to the exploratory nature of the research itself. Our ultimate goal is to develop theory about the returns management process within firms. As a first step, the focus of this research is returns management in Western Europe, specifically within Italian firms. The Italian focus provides a useful starting point due to the changing environment brought about by European economic integration and a pan-european regulatory environment. This research setting provides an opportunity to study both firm-level factors as well as external factors that may influence how firms handle their returns management processes. Background Returns management in Italy was originally studied and approached as an accounting or production quality issue (Corsani, 1930; Ardemani, 1944; Onida, 1951; Saraceno, 1978). In the s, the notion of returns management in Europe became an issue related to sustainable development; recovery practices were mandated through environmental legislation. EU legislation and its green policy approach created sensitivity about products at the end of their life. Thus reverse logistics came to be seen as a problem of sustainable development (De Brito and Dekker, 2004). The Northern European countries have a history of being involved in green issues, primarily focusing on consumer-level issues of waste and packaging recycling (Jahre, 1995b, 1995a; Anderson and Huge Brodin, 2005). Recent legislation now mandates that all EU countries follow new legislative directives relating to packaging (Directive 99/31/EC), cars (Directive 00/53/EC), and electrical/electronic equipment (Directives 02/96/EC and 02/95/EC). These European policies stipulate that all member nations follow green policies in terms of reuse, recycling and product recovery. The European Commission has shown interest in the development of the reverse logistics field by sponsoring international scientific projects through the European working group on reverse logistics, RevLog (Thierry et al., 1995; Fleischmann et al., 1997). This group has focused much of its efforts on issues such as inventory management, particularly in a remanufacturing context (Kleber et al., 2002; Kiesmuller, 2003; Kiesmuller and Scherer, 2003) and issues of network design and product flow 3

4 management (De Koster et al., 2002; Kokkinaki et al., forthcoming). The RevLog research has intensely focused on quantitative modeling of product recovery related issues. In Italy, research has been limited to issues of sustainable mobility for urban transit situations (Borghesi et al., 1997; Maggi, 2001) with some preliminary forays into supply chain and reverse logistics issues (Dallari and Marchet, 2003). Yet, reverse logistics and returns management issues have been absent from academic research and management attention in Italy until very recently. This is primarily due to the small size of 90% of Italian firms where the priority is forward logistics. However, due to the new green laws being enacted across Europe and changing market opportunities (Christopher and Peck, 2003; Borghesi, 2006) academic interest in reverse logistics and returns management is now developing in Italy. The current research represents a preliminary attempt to understand the returns management phenomenon from the perspective of Italian managers. More generally, returns management literature has roots in both the marketing and logistics disciplines, with the early focus on reverse channels and reverse logistics, respectively. One early attempt in the marketing literature by Stanton and Zikmund (1971) focused on the role of the consumer in the reverse distribution channel for waste materials, exemplifying marketing s early focus on environmental issues (Lavidge, 1970). The study of waste disposal was deemed a social marketing issue; reverse channels of distribution were seen as a logical extension of the marketing function, designed to bridge the physical and nonphysical gaps that exist between producers and consumers (Ginter and Starling, 1978). By the 1980 s the logistics literature focused on product flow going the wrong way (Lambert and Stock, 1982), that is, the opposite way with respect to the traditional flow (Murphy and Poist, 1989). In particular, Stock (1992) was the first to approach the issue with a holistic view, trying to create an academic framework for understanding the reverse flow, with emphasis on managing returns as a problem to be solved. Kopicki et al. (1993) studied the opportunities created in the context of reuse, recycling and disposal of product and packaging waste. Because of the different implications of the reverse flow, they concluded that reverse logistics was becoming an important issue with respect to waste reduction. These authors also observed that reverse flows need to be managed differently than forward flows. The changing regulatory environment also motivated academic research in the 1990s. Both American and European laws were becoming increasingly strict for manufacturers (Cairncross, 1992), leading to a focus on environmental management systems (Willits and Giuntini, 1994) across the phases of the product life cycle. Thierry et al. (1995) focused on issues of product recovery in specific sectors, with particular attention on cost savings associated with refurbishing activities. Other authors addressed the relationship between reverse logistics and green logistics (Güngör and Gupta, 1999; Geyer and Jackson 2004). This stream of research centered around the cradle-to-grave approach, considering the 4

5 environmental impact of waste product or packaging materials (see for example, Witt, 1986; Barry et al., 1993; Witt, 1993; Andel, 1995). The emphasis on management practices has led researchers to examine the profitability of returns handling systems (Andel, 1997). Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1999) surveyed American firms and found a growing emphasis of cost reduction in managing return systems. Other researchers (Guide and van Wassenhove, 2003; Dyckhoff et al., 2004) have focused their research on product recovery to reduce production costs. Blackburn et al. (2004) recommend the need to make disposition decisions as soon as possible in the returns process due to the time-sensitivity of most returned goods. That is, the longer it takes to make the disposition decision on a returned product, the lower the expected market value of that product when re-inserted into the forward supply chain. This is supported by Rogers et al. (2002), who position the returns management process as a part of a firm s overall supply chain strategy. They demonstrate the impact of returns management on economic value added (EVA) and on customer and supplier relationships. Their focus on returns avoidance, gatekeeping, reverse logistics and disposal demonstrates the need to manage returns across multiple functional areas and with firms across the supply chain. Shifting from merely a cost-focus to enhanced customer service and financial performance clearly underscores the strategic role of returns in a company s supply chain activities. Both Dowlatshahi (2000) and Carter and Ellram (1998) reported that the preponderance of the literature on reverse logistics was general, practitioner oriented and took the form of application cases specific to individual firms. Drawing from the logistics, marketing and management literature, Carter and Ellram (1998) proposed a model of the factors affecting a firm s reverse logistics practices, including both external and internal factors. Following their call for theory-based research, Daugherty et al. (2001; 2002) provide some of the few theory-based approaches found in the literature to date, focusing on resource and relationship commitments and their impact on overall reverse logistics performance. But little is known about how marketing and logistics managers integrate their decisions and processes with respect to returns. The current research begins to address this issue. Methodology Because the phenomenon of returns management from a cross-functional perspective has been previously unexplored, a qualitative research methodology was chosen. Such an approach is appropriate for generating depth of understanding when a phenomenon is poorly understood (Flint et al., 2002) and over which the researcher has limited or no control. In seeking to understand the role of returns management within Italian firms, a grounded theory approach was adopted (Ellram, 1996; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Grounded theory has its roots in social science, and is focused on understanding how people perceive and interact within a dynamic world (Flint and Mentzer, 2000). This approach has been 5

6 adopted by other researchers studying phenomena in the business-to-business context (Flint et al., 1997; Flint et al., 2002). We used a modified theoretical sampling approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) due to scheduling constraints faced by the research team. Firms deemed to be appropriate candidates were pre-identified and invited to participate in the research. The invited firms were known to one member of the research team, based on long-standing relationships between his university and the relevant business community. Invitations to participate were purposefully extended to firms across different industry sectors and supply chain echelons with the expectation that such diversity would generate a breadth of issues and perspectives. Invitations to participate were sequentially extended until diversity in the sampling pool was achieved. In all cases, senior-level managers were approached; five firms agreed to participate. Each senior manager coordinated the roster of participants in his company, with guidance from the research team related to identification of appropriate functional responsibilities. In all cases interviewees were influential decision makers involved in the returns management process. In the end, the participant pool consisted of three manufacturing firms and two distributors of international parent firms, representing consumer durable goods; auto parts; books; pharmaceuticals; and transmission and propulsion systems for marine applications. Sixteen managers across the five companies were interviewed, reflecting diversity along several dimensions such as function (marketing, sales, logistics, spare parts, supply chain) and level (strategic and operational), tenure on the job, organization size, industry, product lines and supply chain role. A brief description of the participating firms is provided in Table 1 and a profile of the managers is provided in Table 2. Insert Tables 1 and 2 Here In lieu of formal bracketing interviews, each member of the research team wrote a bracketing essay prior to conducting the interviews. Bracketing is a technique to minimize researcher bias with respect to both content and interpretation of interview subject matter (Briggs, 1986). The researchers reviewed the essays with each other so as to sensitize themselves to any pre-conceived biases or expectations, and to maximize objectivity during the interviews. Additionally, the essays provided a reflective analytic framework during interpretation of the interview transcripts. In essence, bracketing is a comparative technique to reduce interpretive bias, i.e., every effort was made to ensure that the research team did not impose any pre-existing conceptions relative to what the data revealed (Valle et al., 1978; Thompson et al., 1989). Although the returns management process is an organizational even a supply chain phenomenon, we chose to focus on individual managers perceptions of the management process. 6

7 Interviews were held individually with each participating manager, and each interview lasted minutes. The depth interviews were open ended and discovery oriented, starting with a grand tour technique borrowed from ethnography (McCracken, 1988). An interview guide that broadly identified topics of interest was used to follow up the grand tour technique. These topics were identified from previous research in returns management (Carter and Ellram, 1998; Rogers et al., 2002; Mollenkopf and Closs, 2005). However, as the interviews progressed, new topics were allowed to emerge as they were brought up by the interviewees. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, as were the debriefing discussions held by the research team after each set of interviews. The debriefing sessions were conducted because of the inability to code transcripts of each interview before proceeding to the next participating company, as advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Thus, we attempted to solidify our perceptions and thoughts with respect to what we were hearing as we went along. The debriefing discussions were used to guide future interviews, particularly as new ideas arose. All interviews were conducted in English with the exception of two conducted in Italian. The Italian transcripts were then translated into English by a professional translator. The Italian member of the research team provided additional validation when interpreting the meaning of the translated interviews. Because we achieved information redundancy via the modified theoretical sampling approach, we were comfortable that theoretical saturation had been achieved. To ensure rigor in the data collection and analysis, we employed two sets of trustworthiness criteria appropriate for qualitative methodology. From interpretive research we applied criteria related to credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and integrity (Hirschman, 1986); from grounded theory we applied criteria of fit, understanding, generality, and control (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Table 3 demonstrates that the data and analyses met these criteria. Insert Table 3 Here Results We focus the discussion of our results around four inter-related aspects that emerged from the interviews: first, the role of the returns management process; second, the nature and impact of cross-functional integration; third, supply chain orientation; and fourth, external factors that influence the returns management process. Figure 1 depicts these aspects of the returns management phenomenon. Insert Figure 1 Here 7

8 The Role of the Returns Management Process Senior management in four of the five firms acknowledges that the returns management process is not a top priority, but the reasons vary across the firms. In Happy Home (pseudonyms have been used for company names), returns management (and particularly the spare parts business which comprises a significant portion of returns management activities) is not a top priority, although it was noted that it is becoming an increasingly problematic issue. At this point in time, however, the firm has too many forward problems for returns management to be perceived as a priority. In Pharmco, returns management is not a major component of its business, and the firm hopes that it never will be, for legal and safety reasons. Its primary responsibility is to be prepared to handle product recall situations and ensure that procedures are in place and strictly adhered to when and if a recall occurs. Operational policy supports returns management at KarPartz and Booksters. That is, these firms think of their distribution channel as both a forward and backward flow. Although viewed as a normal activity, KarPartz policy mandates that outbound orders always take precedence over return goods in regard to space on delivery vehicles. At Booksters, managers have recognized the costs involved in managing returns and have proactively revamped the supply chain to minimize the volume of return goods. Only in MarineWorld is returns management specifically stated as a primary priority. Ironically, the firm has very few returns. Management believes this is the case because a return is a very expensive proposition; intensive efforts are made to understand the context within which its specialized products are used so the firm may avoid returns. Quality verification and validation, in conjunction with understanding product usage at the end customer level, is inextricably tied to the returns management process in this firm. Strategic Level. Rogers et al (2002) discuss the returns management process at both the strategic and operational levels. In this research, clear patterns emerged of strategic vs operational approaches to returns management. Even though returns may not be considered a priority for all five firms, each views returns management goals strategically, in multiple ways. First, a number of the firms increased customer loyalty by decreasing the risk of a return for their customers. Happy Home acquiesced to the increasing level of retailer power. KarPartz is particularly concerned with maintaining its customer base due to regulatory changes which have increased competition and provided more choices for the end consumer. Booksters has always considered that making the returns management process easy for its retailer customers is a given; this is particularly true with regard to its smaller customers. All but one of the firms (MarineWorld) pull products from customer shelves to refurbish or dispose of product in order to protect marketing channels, i.e., to ensure that product does not wind up being devalued in secondary markets or inappropriate channels. In a related manner, Happy Home and Booksters seek to improve profitability by 8

9 pulling poorly selling product and replacing it with new, improved products. Pharmco does the same, in order to keep product past its use by date out of the market. Returns management is an integral component of this strategic approach. Additionally, KarPartz and Booksters utilize asset recovery programs within the returns management process, recovering delivery and packaging containers on a regular basis. The development and use of returns avoidance, gate-keeping and disposition guidelines are integral components of these firms strategies. The literature suggests that a firm identify types of returns, as well as develop policy and screening mechanisms to execute these guidelines (Rogers et al., 2002; Lambert, 2004). Both KarPartz and Happy Home expressly indicated that they have specific policy directives which identify the types of returns handled. For example, Happy Home divides returns into reasons of quality, commercial and logistics. Procedures also exist for merchandise under warranty as opposed to not under warranty. Karpartz has similar identifications for returns of different categories. Returns avoidance is a critical component of the returns management process for most of these firms. KarPartz s priority is to achieve returns reduction through SKU and inventory reduction; Booksters revamped its supply chain to minimize the volume of return goods by producing less inventory upfront and replenishing faster; Pharmco s emphasis on improved order entry and order fulfillment efficiencies, and reduced transportation damage drives its focus on reducing returns; and MarineWorld emphasizes quality verification and validation in design and manufacturing. Gate-keeping involves the screening of both a return request and the returned merchandise. All the firms have a gate-keeping policy. The authorization of a return request is housed in the Marketing department of all of the firms except in Pharmco, where it is handled by Logistics because returns are usually due to logistics mistakes (e.g., wrong product or damaged in transit). The physical screening process of return merchandise is performed at the customer locations. Authorization and physical screening seek to prevent unwarranted merchandise from entering the channel. Finally, all the firms perform a disposition activity which is performed in-house, except Booksters, which outsources this activity. All the firms utilize a returns network and related product flow policies and procedures. Happy Home s process is somewhat haphazard; KartPartz and Pharmco have explicit policy and procedures in place. All of the firms have credit rules and accompanying procedures which determine how the return goods are to be valued, and these seemed to be well-established, although there is a degree of human subjectivity involved in this value determination. With respect to performance measurement and the returns good process, Happy Home makes minimal use of metrics; Pharmco and KarPartz have a set of measurements in place; Booksters utilizes its 3PL to collect this information, particularly productivity numbers; MarineWorld collects return goods 9

10 information as part of its normal operations. A summary of the strategic elements of the returns management process found in the five firms is provided in Table 4, which shows that the firms do focus on returns at a strategic level, although not consistently across all the elements identified by Rogers et al (2002). Insert Table 4 Here Operational Level. Rogers et al. (2002) identify several operational level returns management components. Gatekeeping at the operational level is oftentimes challenging for these firms. While the authorization procedure is an internal decision, the physical screening of the product at the initial point of return is carried out by other supply chain members (i.e., their customers). Specifically, KarPartz and MarineWorld receive return requests from their dealers, Happy Home and Booksters receive return requests from retailers, and Pharmco receives return requests from hospitals and pharmacies. In each of these circumstances, retail store-level clerks and other customer front-line personnel are often unwilling or unable to gatekeep returns, therefore the operational gatekeeping procedure can be problematic (Lambert, 2004) for the five firms. This is a primary reason why returns avoidance is such a priority. Happy Home is the only firm in our sample that does not have any explicit returns avoidance strategies in place; this may be one reason the marketing manager reported that the firm is being battered by the increased power exerted by the larger retailers the lack of strategy results in operational mayhem. Routing of the return goods is driven by the returns authorization procedure and is well established and well handled by firms via set policy procedures. When the product is physically received, verification, inspection and processing activities take place. Generally, this is a manual process, as was observed at KarPartz s and Booksters facilities. At KarPartz, Booksters, and Happy Home, reason codes were assigned to all returns (because physical returns are so infrequent for Pharmco and MarineWorld, this issue was not explored with them). After receipt of goods, disposition of the products must be determined. According to Rogers et al. (2002), this typically includes refurbishment, re-manufacturing, disassembly for parts, recycling, reselling as is or via secondary markets, or scrap. KarPartz employees perform a number of these disposition activities via a series of defined written policy procedures at one of its return facilities; Booksters recycles almost all of its product; Pharmco destroys all of its product due to legal compliance regulations, and does so under control of government authority; Happy Home returns are sold to refurbishment companies or sent to local scrap firms; and MarineWorld negotiates options with customers on the rare occasion that a return must be made. 10

11 Customers must receive credit for their returns, and this activity requires negotiation and preestablished rules. For Happy Home, such negotiations are oftentimes a contentious process. KarPartz, Pharmco and MarineWorld follow very well established procedures, as does Booksters but the latter is flexible especially in regard to its smaller customers (who have historically used returning goods as a mechanism to avoid paying for new products that they are interested in purchasing). Finally, the analysis of returns and measurement of the return goods performance revealed that all the firms are very focused on cost reduction and asset reduction metrics, but do not appear to be very aware or very intent on measurement with respect to return goods impact on short- or long-term sales, except MarineWorld. It should be noted that it is much easier to measure the cost components that the firms do focus on, rather than on sales impact. MarineWorld is the only company that performed analysis with respect to future returns avoidance, or set goals to improve future performance. Table 5 summarizes these findings at the operational level. Insert Table 5 Here Section Summary. While the returns management process is not considered a priority in the five firms, there is strong evidence that there are significant strategic goals and policies in place, not just an operational mind-set. It is also clear in Tables 4 and 5 that returns management strategies and operational activities are incomplete at all firms. This probably relates to the non-prioritization of the returns management process. It also indicates that the strategic goals and policies related to returns management occur primarily in relation to other supply chain and/or logistics initiatives that carry a higher priority internally (e.g., focus on customer loyalty or customer service). Thus what returns management successes these firms are enjoying occurs in spite of the low prioritization of returns management itself. Cross-Functional Integration The degree and depth of logistics-marketing integration within each of the firms varies considerably. Three of the firms exhibit high levels of cross-functional integration, but for very different reasons. We would expect to see high levels of integration at the two firms for whom returns were a normal part of operations. Indeed, KarPartz scores high on integration because it recognizes that service to the dealers which relies upon marketing and logistics working together is the firm s competitive differentiator. The legal environment in Europe recently changed the face of competition in this industry, causing KarPartz to lose its sole-distributorship status in Italy. Thus, the importance of service as a differentiator is becoming increasingly clear as prices begin to drop in the marketplace. The returns management process, which is an integral component of the service offering, is therefore benefiting as well. KarPartz is very customer focused (both dealer and end consumer), and the firm s 11

12 efficiency is achieved without sacrificing service. However well this integration plays out through the firm s service performance, we note that the integration mindset appears to exist only at the senior level of the firm, not at the operational levels. Likewise, at Booksters, integration is strong due to a good working relationship between marketing and distribution managers, which has not always existed. In fact, Booksters is the only firm that explicitly stressed the strong personal working relationships of people across functions as a key reason why integration has improved so much in the last five years. Pharmco is the third firm that exhibits high levels of integration, although the coordination between logistics and accounting is what stands out most prominently. This integration exists for two reasons. First, the firm experiences significant financial exposure due to the long cash-to-cash cycles which exist in this business model. Second, compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley has further increased the integration between logistics, and accounting (and marketing, as well). At the other end of the integration spectrum are Happy Home and MarineWorld. Happy Home exhibits a clear lack of marketing-logistics-spare parts integration. This situation is primarily created because there is poor sales visibility across the firm. The problem is now recognized as such, and is reflected in an increasing awareness of the importance of those internal customers who manage spare parts activities. There is also poor integration between marketing and logistics for product flows. The logistics manager at the firm was the only mid-level manager who acknowledged the need for marketing and logistics to talk to each other. The issue of integration at MarineWorld is puzzling. The firm is very focused on the end user and highly collaborative with its channel dealers. Conversely, the firm is very internally focused around a production mentality. There is very little visibility or sharing of information across functions despite the use of SAP systems. Logistics is primarily a plant-based activity that revolves around production planning. There is no upstream/downstream awareness in the logistics function. Likewise, the marketing function is primarily a sales function, which sees no need to get involved in production planning decisions. Thus the level of marketing-logistics integration is very low in this firm. Section summary. One generally thinks of the returns management process as primarily a physical flow, but Pharmco, KarPartz, and Booksters point out the equally important task of managing financial/administrative flows in the returns management process. It would appear that marketinglogistics integration, using returns management as a proxy, is best achieved when visibility of information is high and strong personal relationships are able to support the information exchange. This is consistent with the logistics literature relating to integration (Mollenkopf et al., 2000; Daugherty et al., 2002). Supply Chain Orientation In our investigation of integration, we discovered a link to a firm s managerial horizons. Does the firm see the upstream suppliers and downstream customers (including second tier and beyond), and 12

13 does the firm understand the implications of managing the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances and information across all organizations in the supply chain? This finding extends the current definition of supply chain orientation (Mentzer et al., 2001) to suggest that supply chain orientation includes both the forward and reverse supply chain. A weakness with regard to internal functional integration and the related ability to possess a broad supply chain orientation limits each of the firms returns management process, with the possible exception of Booksters. Senior management in Happy Home stated that organizational culture is important to supply chain integration (i.e., forward and back), but that the firm is not there yet (per Davide, Supply Chain Director). Today, the supply chain is viewed as a forward flow, while backward [flow] is a problem. In KarPartz, top management displays a supply chain orientation, although this is primarily a distributor dealer view. At the higher levels, the supply chain is viewed as an integrated forward and backward flow, but this orientation does not permeate the more operational levels of the firm. Booksters management possesses a broad supply chain orientation, the firm views the entire channel from publishing to the end consumer (in a forward and reverse manner), and has taken action which reflects that it understands the implications of such an orientation. Pharmco management views returns management as a supply chain responsibility and the supply chain director has good supply chain orientation. However, the firm s responsibility is country-specific outbound distribution, and all upstream inbound activities are managed more centrally in the organization, thus even this view is somewhat limited. MarineWorld did not provide any evidence of having a supply chain orientation. As mentioned previously, logistics is a plant-based mentality that revolves around production planning. While the company does focus on the end customer, this does not translate into a broader orientation of the downstream supply chain. The customer focus, while acknowledged to be important, does not transcend the internal functional silo approach to create a notion of process management across the supply chain. Equally evident was the apparent limited focus on upstream supply chain participants. Section summary. Consistent with the literature, we saw solid evidence of the inability to effectively possess and drive a supply chain orientation due to a lack of cross-functional awareness and execution (Lambert et al., 1998; Stank et al., 2001). The firms generally understand the importance of functional integration in improving the returns management process, but acknowledge that performance in this area requires considerable improvement. External Factors Influencing the Returns Management Process Another issue that became evident throughout this research relates to the external influences on the way the firms perceive, strategize or manage the returns process. External influences derive from customers, the competitive environment and the regulatory environment. These factors provide an interesting context for evaluating many of the returns management issues discussed previously. 13

14 Customer Environment. The immediate customer of each firm is a retailer/dealer. No firm interacts directly with the consumer. Ironically, MarineWorld the least integrated firm of the five with no explicit supply chain orientation is most aware of the needs of its end consumers, due to the demanding nature of marine pleasure craft owners around the world. Happy Home is being heavily influenced by the customer market. Powerful retailers are extending increasingly favorable returns policies to their consumers, and in turn demanding that the manufacturer honor the return and credit the retailer. While the powerful retailers from the USA, UK and Germany started the returns trouble (terminology used by Luigi, Regional Sales Director, Europe), similar retailer expectations with respect to returns is creeping across Europe. The lack of a real returns avoidance strategy and a haphazard approach to managing the reverse flow of product, coupled with this firm s weak functional integration and lack of supply chain vision are converging to create a difficult situation for Happy Home. Booksters is also facing a changing retail environment as large footprint chains continue to gain market share from the traditional independent booksellers. However, instead of becoming victim to the retailers demands, Booksters is proactively managing its marketing channels, aided by its high levels of functional integration and holistic supply chain vision. Competitive Environment. KarPartz faces turbulence in its competitive environment. This turbulence has been brought about primarily from the European block exemption rule which opened the industry to more competitors. Having lost its sole distributorship rights in Italy, the firm must now compete for the dealer market. The high level of logistics-marketing integration enables the firm to proactively compete on service, while maintaining efficiencies for cost control. Happy Home also faces turbulence in the competitive environment. The need to reduce production costs has driven the firm to outsource in China and it must now deal with the accompanying complexity of a longer supply chain. Regulatory Environment. Booksters is the only firm that faces no apparent regulatory issues. Environmental regulation such as the European Waste Electronic and Electric Equipment (WEEE) Directive and design for the environment regulations are impacting both Happy Home and KarPartz. While both firms acknowledge the additional complexity and cost that these regulations will bring to their supply chains, neither firm appears to be developing product recovery strategies or end-of-life plans for their products. KarPartz appears to be in a better position to handle the additional requirements of a returns management system under these additional constraints due to the normal role of returns in its supply chain and a higher level of logistics-marketing integration. However, both firms will soon need to face the changing world being brought about by these regulatory changes. Pharmco faces regulatory changes of a different sort. The firm has had to revamp its operations to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley, yet it acknowledges that the changes have actually enabled increased supply chain efficiencies. Section Summary. The key finding suggests that while environmental change is inevitable, some 14

15 firms are better able or more willing to adapt to such changes. With respect to returns management, those firms that are more highly integrated, with strategic and operational procedures in place and a strong supply chain orientation appear to be better positioned to react, or pro-act to their changing world. Discussion and Future Research Investigation of the five firms returns management processes has shed light on a previously unexplored component of the returns management process in Italy. More importantly, the research provides a preliminary understanding of the role of the returns management process in a firm s overall supply chain strategy. While differences across firms were expected due to the distinct industrial segments explored, we found many common themes emerging from the data. These relate to the strategic as well as the operational level. Using Rogers et al s (2002) framework of the returns management process, we were able to map many characteristics of the firms processes and develop an understanding of how far the firms have developed with respect to returns management, and in which areas they may need to address managerial attention. Both functional integration and supply chain orientation are related to a firm s management of the returns process. Additionally, a firm s awareness of the external environment, in the form of customer, competitive and regulatory issues, seems to have bearing on how a firm manages its returns activities. Managerial Implications. Managers can take away several relevant points from this preliminary research. First, they should monitor and respond to the external factors which influence returns. As customer, competitive and regulatory environments continue to change, returns are an increasingly important component in managing green issues, consumer protection issues, and perhaps most importantly legislative issues. Moreover, these external factors impact physical flows, information flows and financial flows in the supply chain the scope of such impact is quite broad. Second, effectiveness of returns management seems to be enhanced when functional areas within the firm coordinate their strategic and operational activities. Among the participating companies, those with higher levels of functional integration appear to be more adaptive and pro-active in managing returns. Thus managers need to actively pursue the breakdown of functional silo-ism when it comes to returns management. Third, managers need to integrate their reverse supply chain with the activities and processes in their forward supply chains. We saw evidence that managing returns can impact product design to minimize return volume or to make the product conducive to further processing (e.g., refurbishment), can help protect marketing channels, and can add to supply chain efficiencies. Speculation of a Causal Model. The non-longitudinal approach to our in-depth interview protocol does not permit us to define a cause-and-effect structural model. However, based on the extended periods of time covered by the participants narratives as well as the nature of the participants discussions, we 15

16 can speculate on a causal model (see Figure 2), and provide direction for future research and validation. Propositions to guide future research based on our causal model are presented in Table 6. While our current findings suggest relationships between the various constructs presented in Figure 2, the nature of the relationships needs to be further explored. For example, while our findings suggest that functional integration and effectiveness of a firm s returns management process are inter-related, we are unsure as to whether the relationship is direct or whether functional integration moderates the relationship between a firm s strategic/operational policies and practices and the effectiveness of the returns management process. Insert Figure 2 and Table 6Here Research Limitations and Future Research. Methodological limitations must be considered. The modified sampling procedure was carefully conducted to allow a priori both literal and theoretical replication in our data collection process. Redundancy of thematic issues did emerge through our interviews, suggesting theoretical saturation was achieved. However, additional research needs to be conducted with Italian firms to see whether other themes emerge that we may have missed due to the nature of our sampling process. Furthermore, our focus on Italian firms may in itself be limiting. Given the pan-european approach to many business practices, especially related to supply chain management, this research needs to be replicated in other national settings within western and eastern Europe to determine the robustness of the factors posited to be important to the returns management process. This is especially critical because returns management research and practice in Italy are still new and underdeveloped. Much can be learned by comparing results in Italy with practices in other European settings, such as The Netherlands or Scandinavia, where reverse logistics and sustainability issues are much more advanced in both practice and research. Ideally, this research will be extended beyond the horizons of Europe. For example, the external factors discussed in this paper may have very different influences on returns management in other parts of the world. Other factors may be even more important. In this research we focused primarily on the logistics-marketing interface to understand returns management, but clearly other functional areas are involved. Accounting/finance was particularly important for at least one of our firms. What role does it play in other firms? What other functional areas should be considered to better understand the returns process? Future research needs to further explore other functional linkages to develop a better understanding of integration as it relates to returns management. We focused our efforts on single firms, and while we were able to ascertain their perceptions of broader supply chain issues related to returns, we still know very little about the returns management 16

17 process across the supply chains within which these firms operate. Future research could take a broader supply chain approach and study the returns management across firms. For example, collecting data from the customers and suppliers (at multiple tiers) of our focal firms should provide an extended understanding of returns management issues across the supply chain. Our focus on functional integration would then become a study of interorganizational integration. Following the previous suggestion, we note that as supply chains continue to globalize, the impact on returns must be considered, and management processes need to be put in place to manage across the globally extended supply chain. For example, one of the firms we interviewed recently offshored some manufacturing activities to Asia; subsequently, it noted an unexpected decline in product quality, with a subsequent increase in return products. Alternatively, another company is on the verge of outsourcing production to Asia, but stated that they expect no changes in product quality to ensue. Is this because the managers at the second company are simply naïve, or do they have better processes in place to ensure that product quality is maintained and therefore, subsequent returns can be avoided? More importantly, the literature on supply chain globalization has not considered the impact that globalization will have on returns. Not only may quality issues cause an increase in return rates, but returns avoidance will likely become more challenging for firms dealing with extended supply chains. The lead time involved in global supply chains may also create problems with respect to supplying replacement and spare parts. Thus, the issues related to globalization represent a rich area for future research on returns management. Finally, future research needs to more specifically explore the role of returns management in firms corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Although CSR was not a major topic of discussion with our participants, awareness of CSR was evident. As firms continue to develop and implement CSR programs, returns management as part of supply chain strategy may become increasingly important. Future research needs to be able to capture and assess the link between CSR and returns management. Conclusion. Our purpose in this research was to develop an understanding of the linkage between functional integration and the way a firm manages its returns process. While we focused our attention on marketing and logistics integration, we discovered that other functional areas need to be incorporated into such research. Additionally, we identified several other factors that influence the returns management process; there may be more factors we have not yet discovered. Based on this work, we posit a preliminary theoretical model to guide future returns management research. The model needs to be further developed, but we believe theory will become an increasingly valuable tool to manage return flows within supply chains. 17

18 References Andel, T. (1995), "Conversion to Reusable Wins Believers", Transportation & Distribution, Vol. 36, pp. 94. Andel, T. (1997), "Reverse Logistics: A Second Chance to Profit", Transportation & Distribution, Vol. 38, pp Anderson, H. and Huge Brodin, M. (2005), "The Consumer's Changing Role: The Case of Recycling", Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol 16 No. 1, pp Ardemani, E. (1944), Costi E Risultati Di Esercizio Nelle Grandi Imprese Meccaniche a Produzione Varia, Milano: Società Editrice Vita e Pensiero. Barry, J., Girard, G. and Perras, C. (1993), "Logistics Shifts into Reverse", Journal of European Business, Vol 5 No. September/October, pp Blackburn, J. D., Guide, R. D. V. J., Souza, G. C. and van Wassenhove, L. N. (2004), "Reverse Supply Chains for Commercial Returns", California Management Review, Vol 42 No. 2, pp Borghesi, A., Buffa, A. and Canteri, R. (1997), Manuale Di Logistica, Padova: Cedam. Borghesi, A. (2006), Marketing-Logistica, Milano: Giuffre. Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J. and Stank, T. P. (1999), 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality, Oak Brook: Council of Logistics Management. Briggs, C. (1986), Learning How to Ask: A Sociolingual Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cairncross, F. (1992), "How Europe's Companies Reposition to Recycle", Harvard Business Review, Vol 70 No. 2, pp Carter, C. R. and Ellram, L. M. (1998), "Reverse Logistics: A Review of the Literature and Framework for Future Investigation", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 19 No. 1, pp Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2003), Marketing Logistics, London: Butterworth Heinemann. Corsani, G. (1930), Le Determinazioni Di Convenienza Economica Nelle Imprese Mercantili E Manifatturiere Il Fondamento Economico-Tecnico Delle Vie Della Gestione, Firenze: Tip. Sordomuti Dallari, F. and Marchet, G. (2003), Rinnovare La Supply Chain: Come Gestire La Trasformazione Della Logistica E Dei Trasporti, Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore. Daugherty, P. J., Autry, C. W. and Ellinger, A. E. (2001), "Reverse Logistics: The Relationship between Resource Commitment and Program Performance", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 22 No. 1, pp Daugherty, P. J., Myers, M. B. and Richey, R. G. (2002), "Information Support for Reverse Logsitics: The Influence of Relationship Commitment", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 23 No. 1, pp De Brito, M. P. and Dekker, R. (2004) "A Framework for Reverse Logistics", In R. Dekker, K. Inderfurth, L. N. van Wassenhove & M. Fleischmann, (ed.) Reverse Logistics: Quantitative Models for Closed-Looop Supply Chains. Berlin, Germany: Springer- Verlag, chapter 1. De Koster, R. B. M., De Brito, M. P. and van de Vendel, M. A. (2002), "Return Handling: An Exploratory Study with Nine Retailer Warehouses", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol 30 No. 8/9, pp

19 Dowlatshahi, S. (2000), "Developing a Theory of Reverse Logistics", Interfaces, Vol 30 No. 3, pp Dyckhoff, H., Lackes, R. and Reese, J. Eds. (2004), Supply Chain Management and Reverse Logistics. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Ellram, L. (1996), "The Use of the Case Study Method in Logistics Research", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 17 No. 2, pp Fleischmann, M., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., Dekker, R., Van der Laan, E. A., Van Nunen, J. A. E. E. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. (1997), "Quantitative Models for Reverse Logistics: A Review." European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 103 No., pp Fleischmann, M., Krikke, H. R., Dekker, R. and Flapper, S. D. P. (2000), "A Characterisation of Logistics Networks for Product Recovery", Omega, Vol 28 No., pp Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B. and Gardial, S. F. (1997), "Customer Value Change in Industrial Marketing Relationships: A Call for New Strategies and Research", Industrial Marketing Management, Vol 26 No., pp Flint, D. J. and Mentzer, J. T. (2000), "Logisticians as Marketers: Their Role When Customers' Desired Value Changes", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 21 No. 2, pp Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B. and Gardial, S. F. (2002), "Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers' Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context", Journal of Marketing, Vol 66 No. 4, pp Geyer, R. and Jackson, T. (2004), "Supply Loops and Their Constraints: The Industrial Ecology of Recycling and Reuse", California Management Review, Vol 46 No. 2, pp Ginter, P. M. and Starling, J. M. (1978), "Reverse Distribution Channels for Recycling", California Management Review, Vol 20 No. 3, pp Guide, V. D. R. J. and van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003) "Business Aspects of Closed-Loop Supply Chains", In D. R. V. J. Guide & L. N. van Wassenhove, (ed.) Business Aspects of Closed-Loop Supply Chains. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Press, Güngör, A. A. and Gupta, S. (1999), "Issues in Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing and Product Recovery: A Survey", Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol 36 No., pp Hirschman, E. C. (1986), "Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosphy, Method, and Criteria", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 23 No. 3, pp Jahre, M. (1995a), "Household Waste Collection as Reverse Channels -- a Theoretical Perspective", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol 25 No. 2, pp Jahre, M. (1995b), "Logistics Systems for Recycling -- Efficient Collection of Household Waste", Chalmers University of Technology,Goteburg, Sweden. Kiesmuller, G. P. (2003), "A New Approach for Controlling a Hybrid Stochastic Manufacturing/Remanufacturing System with Inventories and Different Leadtimes", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 147 No. 1, pp Kiesmuller, G. P. and Scherer, C. W. (2003), "Computational Issues in a Stochastic Finite Horizon One Product Recovery Inventory Model", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 146 No. 3, pp Kleber, R., Minner, S. and Kiesmuller, G. P. (2002), "A Continuous Time Inventory Model for a Product Recovery System with Multiple Options", International Journal of Production Economics, Vol 279 No. 2, pp

20 Kokkinaki, A. I., Dekker, R., de Koster, R. B. M., Pappis, C. and Verbeke, W. (forthcoming), "Web Applications for Reverse Logistics Networks", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol No., pp. Kopicki, R., Berg, M. J., Legg, L., Dasapppa, V. and Maggioni, C. (1993), Reuse and Recycling: Reverse Logistics Opportuntities, Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management. Lambert, D. M. and Stock, J. R. (1982), Strategic Physical Distribution Management, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C. and Pagh, J. D. (1998), "Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol 9 No. 2, pp Lambert, D. M. (2004), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnership, Perfomance, Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute. Lavidge, R. J. (1970), "The Growing Responsibilities of Marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol 34 No. 1, pp Maggi, E. (2001), "La Logistica Merci Urbana; Criticita' E Proposte Di Soluzione", XXII Conferenze Italiana di Scienze Regionali,Venezia. McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Beverly Hill, CA: Sage Publications. Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D. and Zacharia, Z. G. (2001), "Defining Supply Chain Management", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 22 No. 2, pp Mollenkopf, D., Gibson, A. and Ozanne, L. (2000), "The Integration of Marketing and Logistics Functions: An Empircial Examination of New Zealand Firms", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 21 No. 2, pp Mollenkopf, D. and Closs, D. J. (2005), "The Hidden Value in Reverse Logistics", Supply Chain Management Review, Vol July/August No., pp Mollenkopf, D. A., Closs, D. J., Twede, D., Lee, S. and Burgess, G. (2005), "Assessing the Viability of Reusable Packaging: A Relative Cost Approach", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 26 No. 1, pp Murphy, P. R. and Poist, R. P. (1989), "Management of Logistics Retromovements: An Empirical Analysis of Literature Suggestions", Transportation Research Forum, Vol 29 No. 1, pp Onida, P. (1951), Il Bilancio D'esercizio Nelle Imprese: Significato Economico Del Bilancio Problemi Di Valutazione, Milano: Giuffre. Rogers, D. S. and Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1999), Going Backwards: Reverse Logistics Trends and Practices, Pittsburgh, PA: Reverse Logistics Executive Council. Rogers, D. S. and Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (2001), "An Examination of Reverse Logistics Practices", Journal of Business Logistics, Vol 22 No. 2, pp Rogers, D. S., Lambert, D. M., Croxton, K. L. and Garcia-Dastugue, S. J. (2002), "The Returns Management Process", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol 13 No. 2, pp Saraceno, P. (1978), La Produzione Industriale, Venezia: Libreria Universitaria Editrice. Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B. and Closs, D. J. (2001), "Performance Benefits of Supply Chain Logistical Integration", Transportation Journal, Vol 41 No. 2/3, pp Stanton, W. J. and Zikmund, W. G. (1971), "Recycling Solid Wastes: A Channels-of- Distribution Problem", Journal of Marketing, Vol 35 No. 3, pp Stock, J. (1992), Reverse Logistics, Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management. 20